The Irrational Games Website now features a Q&A on the recently revealed specs for the PC edition of BioShock Infinite, their upcoming first-person shooter sequel. There are a few answers covering Steam support, saying that Steam is required, Steam's standard DRM will be used, and boxed copies will include Steam keys. They also say the game will have full widescreen support and will be able to play at the maximum framerate supported by your system, and discuss OS support, saying it will be Window 8 "compatible" and not "certified," and that there will be no Windows XP support.

StingingVelvet wrote on Jan 29, 2013, 09:54:What I also said was, don't act like everyone is like you.

Sounds like you should take your own advice. People should have the choice and wanting the choice doesn't mean they're calling people who like low FOV weird. I get pissed off when games don't offer it but I don't get mad at people who don't care, I get mad at the company who didn't offer it.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2013, 11:45:But what made you think I acted that way?

I'm speaking in generals. The general tone about FOV is "omg you monsters this is unplayable," which I think is way overboard. That's all. And I agree with Sawyer that a lot of people screaming about it would eventually get used to the change and be better of for it, if they went with it. That's what happened to me, I went from constant FOV hacks to not caring and outright disliking higher FOV because of the fisheye.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2013, 00:01:Yeah I don't agree with him because while it *does* cause distortion it also causes me nausea. So if a game deadlocks the fov to 60 (Syndicate, Darkness 2, Bioshock) it's not subjective that I get sick within 30 minutes.

So I don't give a damn what the reasons are. Deadlocked FOV is a stupid decision and an attack on my health.

And I said we should have the option. What I also said was, don't act like everyone is like you.

But what made you think I acted that way? It's nice for you that a low fov does not bother you, but the post by you I originally quoted did not specify whether you were for having the option. Rather it sounded you were belittling people complaining about deadlocked FOV as people who just need to get "used to it"... And for me, and many many others, the option and lack of said option is a HEALTH issue, not an artistic choice a developer has the RIGHT to make. Unless he likes making people sick but even if he likes that, that is not a right a developer has.. maybe I should sue them.... And so far every single developer that deadlocked the fov has received an email by me "Why are you making us intentionally sick with a forced low FOV" where I detailed every single research and health related article related to this topic.

So far, I haven't got a response where it was an issue (obviously I kept it not argumentative and flamy ;P) (Star Breeze and Digital Extremes particularly really don't give a shit, so these companies suck.)

Anyhow, point is... for Bioshock Infinity it is a moot discussion, they got Fov slider. Thankfully. But there are many games with deadlocked FOV which are unplayable or at least only barely enjoyable to quite a few people.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2013, 00:01:Yeah I don't agree with him because while it *does* cause distortion it also causes me nausea. So if a game deadlocks the fov to 60 (Syndicate, Darkness 2, Bioshock) it's not subjective that I get sick within 30 minutes.

So I don't give a damn what the reasons are. Deadlocked FOV is a stupid decision and an attack on my health.

And I said we should have the option. What I also said was, don't act like everyone is like you.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2013, 00:01:Yeah I don't agree with him because while it *does* cause distortion it also causes me nausea. So if a game deadlocks the fov to 60 (Syndicate, Darkness 2, Bioshock) it's not subjective that I get sick within 30 minutes.

So I don't give a damn what the reasons are. Deadlocked FOV is a stupid decision and an attack on my health.

And that is indeed why it's not subjective but objective that it's fucking stupid if developers don't implement the option to increase FOV, whether you want to use the option or not.

Yeah I don't agree with him because while it *does* cause distortion it also causes me nausea. So if a game deadlocks the fov to 60 (Syndicate, Darkness 2, Bioshock) it's not subjective that I get sick within 30 minutes.

So I don't give a damn what the reasons are. Deadlocked FOV is a stupid decision and an attack on my health.

Beamer wrote on Jan 28, 2013, 14:50:I don't get how you deny the very video someone posted here as inaccurate and say "it's because you played Quake!"

Dude, the brain expects to see a certain field of view. A monitor becomes like a window. If you don't see as much as you're supposed to the brain gets... mixed.

The video is talking about optimum FOV. I know all about it from years spent at the widescreengamingforum. What it doesn't talk about is game assets and perspectives being designed around the FOV and how altering it creates fisheye.

I would rather my 4:3 games fill my screen but I am not going to stretch them to do so. Similarly while in some games, like say Dishonored, I would want a higher FOV, it is not worth distorting the image to achieve it.

If it made me sick I would likely accept the fisheye, but it doesn't. My entire point is people are different, FOV bothers some more than others, and fisheye bothers some more than others, and in the end it is SUBJECTIVE. That is my point.

The only people I am complaining about are ones who act like it is not subjective, and portray low FOV games as broken. Totalbiscuit is a good example.

Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Jan 28, 2013, 04:08:I remember playing Skyrim for the first time and not being able to put my finger on the reason why I had trouble focussing when looking around. It made me crazy. I wanted to knock out my brain with a sledgehammer at some point. Luckily, just in time, I realized increasing the FOV took care of that problem.

Raising Skyrim's FOV at all brings on fisheye really fast, due to the way they built the game. Most games get the fisheye effect when raised above the designed FOV but Skyrim REALLY had a problem with it. I'm not as tech guy and don't remember the exact reason, but I read about it somewhere.

In any event if that doesn't bother you then hooray, enjoy, but not everyone agrees with you.

Where in most games FOV lovers would want it around 90, they probably want it around 80 in Skyrim. Going 90 gives you that crazy effect you see in The Fellowship of The Ring when Frodo looks down a forest path and senses a Black Rider approaching.

The distorted feel with FOV is that the visuals stretch out at the edges of the screen. I agree with you in a sense. It's a lesser evil to me. Paying attention to the stretched out edges, especially noticeable when standing right next to a wall, makes it questionable if increasing the FOV is such a great thing after all. But then.. we'd all prefer stretched out edges above a dizzy headache.

StingingVelvet wrote on Jan 28, 2013, 13:09:Yes, the reason being a ton of people have motion sickness issues or are used to a higher FOV from years of Quake matches or whatever. I am not denying that and am happy we have the choice.

There are many benefits to a high FOV in most games, particularly when your viewing distance is close to the screen. How gracious of you to not deny "years of Quake" though.

What I said was it annoys me when you guys act like it's a fact that higher is better, or that every PC gamer agrees with you. We do not.

Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Jan 28, 2013, 04:08:I remember playing Skyrim for the first time and not being able to put my finger on the reason why I had trouble focussing when looking around. It made me crazy. I wanted to knock out my brain with a sledgehammer at some point. Luckily, just in time, I realized increasing the FOV took care of that problem.

Raising Skyrim's FOV at all brings on fisheye really fast, due to the way they built the game. Most games get the fisheye effect when raised above the designed FOV but Skyrim REALLY had a problem with it. I'm not as tech guy and don't remember the exact reason, but I read about it somewhere.

In any event if that doesn't bother you then hooray, enjoy, but not everyone agrees with you.

Can I buy this logic in a jar? Low FOV motion sickness is a medical issue, not a damned choice! If you don't suffer from it you are not having the setup required to suffer from it (large screen, less than arm length distance).

If you don't agree with scientific facts (and that is the case for the FOV and what is optimal at what distance : screensize : aspect) then nobody can help you. But we are not even hating low fov, we are hating on companies deadlocking it with bullshit excuses....

I use a 28" screen just over arm's distance away. It's not an issue for everyone, nor is it some kind of "fact" you insane person. It's a subjective thing. I tried Bioshock (and many other games) in default FOV and higher FOV and I see fisheye on the higher one.

JE Sawyer wrote about this on his formspring a while back and basically said old Quake players need to just get used to it because high FOV brings on distortion. I agree with him. You don't have to, that's why it's subjective.

Not everyone is effected by that and personally every time I raise an FOV above default I see fisheye.

I'm fine with low FOV haters expressing their opinion, but when they act like every PC gamer agrees with them I roll my eyes a bit.

I think this is the biggest bullcrap I've seen you write... like, ever. Ere4s3r replied accordingly, to his credits.

If you have a big screen, sitting close to it, low FOV makes you feel like a fucking horse on parade. You know, with those flaps on each side of your head blocking your natural view to the side and giving you tunnelvision.

I remember playing Skyrim for the first time and not being able to put my finger on the reason why I had trouble focussing when looking around. It made me crazy. I wanted to knock out my brain with a sledgehammer at some point. Luckily, just in time, I realized increasing the FOV took care of that problem.

Beamer wrote on Jan 27, 2013, 16:39:FOV is not an artistic decision, unless you're doing mech or something. Otherwise its a biological necessity. FOV is tied to distance from the screen and how your brain expects images to appear. NOT artistic

It's an artistic decision if you want to go for suspense. Tight FOVs are a staple of the horror genre, and for good reason: preventing the players from seeing more than a sliver of the word at once builds tension and makes it easy to surprise the player.

Not that I'm saying this is what Bioshock is going for; only that there are good, non-technical reasons for a fixed, narrow FOV.